跳至主要内容
临床试验/NCT04325399
NCT04325399已完成不适用

A Randomised Controlled Trial of a Brief Planning Intervention to Promote Physical Activity

University of Manchester0 个研究点目标入组 98 人开始时间: 2016年4月1日最近更新:
适应症
干预措施

试验速览

阶段
不适用
状态
已完成
入组人数
98
主要终点
Gym attendance

研究概览

简要总结

People of low socioeconomic status are more inclined to incur poor health than those of high socioeconomic status. Different factors have been attributed to contributing to such health inequalities, including differences in modifiable lifestyle factors. For example, people of high socioeconomic status are more likely to engage in greater levels of physical activity, and are more inclined to adhere and take up population-level behaviour change interventions. Subsequently, there has been a call to create more targeted interventions designed to especially target people with low socioeconomic status.

Socioeconomic status represents availability and access to resources, and measures that are broadly divided into individual measures such as income, education and occupational status, and area-level or neighbourhood deprivation measures. However, while socioeconomic status is a multifaceted concept, there is a tendency in research to use a single measure (such as either income or education level) interchangeably to capture the full scope of socioeconomic status. This is based upon the assumption that one socioeconomic measure taps into the underlying features of another aspect of socioeconomic status, despite little being known about the effect each socioeconomic status measure has upon physical activity intervention outcomes.

Therefore the purpose of this study is to consider the effect the different measures of socioeconomic status, specifically income, occupational status, education and area deprivation, have upon the effectiveness of an established implementation intentions-based intervention (the volitional helpsheet) designed to increase physical activity.

详细描述

Detailed Description A health gap exists such that people of low socioeconomic status are more inclined to incur poor health than those of high socioeconomic status (Marmot, 2005). Differences in modifiable lifestyle factors between high- and low-socioeconomic groups, such as differences in physical activity levels, have been implemented in contributing to this health gap. Additionally, interventions created to redress this health gap can unintentionally have the reverse effect of increasing health inequalities as more affluent individuals are more likely to take up and adhere to behaviour change interventions, thus creating intervention-generated inequalities (White et al., 2009). Subsequently, there has been an increased call for interventions designed to promote healthy lifestyle behaviours, including physical activity, to be targeted towards specific groups of individuals including people with low-socioeconomic status (White et al., 2009). However, socioeconomic status is typically operationalised using a single measure such as educational status, yet socioeconomic status represents availability of and access to resources (Psaki et al., 2014), including those that access physical activity.

Socioeconomic measures can broadly be categorised as individual level factors, such as income, education and occupation, and area-level indicators or neighbourhood deprivation indices (Galobardes et al., 2006a, 2006b) such as the Index of Multiple Deprivation. While each measure captures a specific aspect of socioeconomic status, having its own relative strengths and limitations, there is a tendency in research to use a single measure (such as either income or education level) interchangeably to capture the full scope of socioeconomic status (Geyer et al., 2006). This is based upon the assumption that one socioeconomic measure taps into the underlying features of another aspect of socioeconomic status, despite little being known about the effect each socioeconomic status measure has upon physical activity intervention outcomes.

The purpose of this study is to consider the effect the different measures of socioeconomic status, specifically income, occupational status, education and area deprivation, have upon the effectiveness of an established implementation intentions-based intervention (the volitional help sheet) designed to increase physical activity and which has been shown to increase physical activity among manual workers (Armitage & Arden, 2010).

This study will seek to address the following research questions;

  1. Does the volitional help sheet (VHS) increase gym attendance among new gym registrants?
  2. Does the way in which socioeconomic status is measured moderate the effects of the volitional help sheet on gym attendance between low and high -income, - education, -occupation and -area deprivation groups?

研究设计

研究类型
Interventional
分配方式
Randomized
干预模型
Parallel
主要目的
Other
盲法
Double (Participant, Investigator)

入排标准

年龄范围
18 Years 至 —(Adult, Older Adult)
性别
All
接受健康志愿者
是

入选标准

  • •Adults aged 18 or over
  • •Newly registered gym members
  • •Be able to speak English

排除标准

  • •Adults with an obvious learning difficulty that means they were unable to understand the purpose of the study and what was asked of them as they would not be able to provide informed consent.
  • •Adults who have been a gym member in the past 12 months preceding the study

研究组 & 干预措施

Planning

Experimental

The volitional help sheet (VHS) comprises of a list of challenges to being physically active (e.g. "If I'm tempted not to go to the gym because it's cold outside") and a list of possible ways to overcome thes (e.g. "then I will make myself go to the gym anyway because I know I will feel better afterward"). In the experimental VHS link group, participants are asked to form "if-then" plans by drawing a line between challenges and solutions to link them together.

干预措施: Volitional help sheet (Other)

No planning

No Intervention

Participants in the VHS tick group are presented with the exact same volitional help sheet as the experimental group, the only difference being that participants in this group are not asked to make if-then plans. Rather, participants in the control group are asked to tick challenges and solutions that they feel are relevant to them.

结局指标

主要结局

Gym attendance

时间窗: Gym attendance was recorded over 12 months from baseline

Attendance of participants at a leisure centre/gym recorded using electronic entry swipes

次要结局

未报告次要终点

研究者

申办方类型
Other
责任方
Principal Investigator
主要研究者

Claire Hanlon

Miss

University of Manchester

相似试验